So why is this information being kept from us? Is it as bad as we think? And what are the good points of genetic engineering?
The main argument used by people who are in favour of genetic engineering, is that it could be possible to eradicate almost 5000 genetic diseases and disorders such as thalassaemia, cystic fibrosis and down syndrome. It could even be taken as far as eradicating cancer in future generations. But what about the generations that are already here and are afflicted with such diseases? Do we just forget about these people and pin our hopes on these genetically engineered babies? Well there is another side to this argument. As in the case of Zain Hasmi, a specially screened or manipulated sibling could be born through IVF for the purpose of donating blood or bone marrow to an already existing sibling, who is afflicted with a disease.
There is an equally valuable argument against this point, however, people who are against designer babies would say that this is all hypothetical and that we do not know the consequences of any manipulations that scientists may make and we could create yet more diseases. This argument is backed up with evidence however and is not just there to scaremonger. In the USA, scientists inserted a gene into test pigs, which they hoped would make the pigs leaner and fitter. The inserted gene however spiralled out of control and resulted in drastic changes in the pig’s physical state. Many vital internal organs including the heart and liver swelled to disproportional sizes and the pigs developed stomach tumours and became infertile.
Also, there are the moral issues involved in allowing parents to have children to save the life of another child. In the bigger picture, this could be a catalyst of a human “spare parts” industry, which could be absolutely devastating, but more importantly is how a specifically born child is going to be affected emotionally and psychologically, when he or she finds out they were born just for the purposes of another. There is also the fact that no family is perfect and any specifically manufactured child could be a social outcast in the family, after it has been seen to have “served its purpose”.
Another big issue for people who are against genetically engineered embryos is that there is no legislation in place to state who would be able to access genetically modifying technology if it ever became available. At the minute, there is great debate about whether IVF should be put on the NHS, yet there has been no foresight in parliament to debate legislation on designer babies. People against designer babies have taken heart in the fact that research into embryos has been slowed down by this law. No live embryo may be kept alive, beyond 14 days after fertilisation nor may it be used as a research subject beyond that time.
Another debate that is linked to the designer babies debate is the Nature, Nurture debate. This focuses on whether people’s genetic make-up is the reason for different people doing different things e.g. taking drugs or committing crimes. Or whether it is the environment people grow up in, that shapes them e.g. if you grow up where drugs are prevalent, are you more likely to take drugs? People in favour of genetic modification are more inclined to agree with the nature aspect of this debate, as this would add more bulk to the argument in favour of genetic engineering, because the technology would be able to manipulate the genes and eradicate things such as addiction. People who disagree with genetic modification would agree with the nurture debate as it undermines the nature debate.
There is also considerable risk in designer babies, those against would say. They argue that IVF treatment isn’t even remotely foolproof as it has only 20% success rate. Perhaps more worrying moreover are recent genetic engineering tests on mice, which have shown freakish results. A gene for muscle development was experimented on and rat hormones were injected into mice embryos. The embryos when born into mice, grew to the size of rats, yet became passive and meek. So the question that groups who oppose genetic engineering are putting to their counterparts is, “are you prepared to put our children at such risks?”
Risk is an element groups in favour seem prepared to take. From debate in my class, groups in favour believe that the benefits far outweigh the risks involved. Groups in favour believe that their opponents are scare mongering about the creation of new diseases or a spare parts industry. This is what Bernard Davis of the US News and World Report says “Genetic Engineering has been yielding benefits in medicine, agriculture and industry for 6 years without a day of illness”.
Let’s get away from the physical issues of designer babies and look at how it might affect society as a structure. Sections supporting the techniques, believe we could create better people and that we could create what humans have strived to become for centuries, the perfect specimen.
The other side of the argument is that far from creating a perfect human species and society, we could (by creating designer babies) be on the verge of splitting already wide chasms in society. As a result of the expensive technology that will be required to genetically modify babies, not everyone will be in a position, financially, to access its so-called benefits. This argument is summed up in the words of Professor Lee Silver on the programme Horizon in the year 2000; “Designer babies could actually cause a future more horrible than anything in Brave New World. The gap between the haves and have-nots will widen”. In essence, diseases and imperfections will be eradicated in the upper classes and would be kept to the lower classes. Also, favouritism and racism between genetically engineered people and “ordinary” people could develop and we could split into two different breeds of humans. Similar to Stone Age times between Neanderthals and the more advanced Homosapiens, the Neanderthals eventually died out. So, are we the non- genetically engineered people going to become the Neanderthals?
A secondary argument that people who are against designer babies use is that we are trying to duck major problem in our society by using genetic engineering as an excuse. That of diversity. Those against believe that the problem is that we are not accepting people for what they are, disease or no disease and that we as a society should try and fix our social problems through such things as education and public awareness. This is mirrored in Tom Shakespeare’s statement, a part-time columnist with the Guardian. Tom has a genetically transferred disability and he says, “rather than seeking solutions by eliminating people with impairment, we should campaign for structural and global changes”.
However, many people who support genetic engineering argue that we are improving on nature and that nobody wants a disability. They argue that we are not ducking any problems but we are evolving naturally and this compares to the discovery of fire or the invention of the wheel, just the next step of our human evolution.
In conclusion, I agree with many of these aspects, to an extent. My fundamental view is that we would be hypocritical of our laws and values if we did not allow our doctors, who would need to be specially trained, to use this technology to save lives and only save lives. I believe that if we allow this technology to spiral out of control, i.e. genetically engineered looks and personality, it would be a disaster for our society. I also think that allowing scientists to encourage parents to design their “a la carte” babies would also be catastrophic. It is essential that legislation is drafted and that detailed, informed debate takes place immediately otherwise we could end up with a human spare parts industry or a warped Utopia, like Brave New World.
The voice of history and literature should not be ignored as they can serve as warnings to the governments today. The attempted Swedish eugenics of the 1970’s is only today fully coming to light and Brave New World is so frighteningly accurate it chills my spine thinking about it.
I believe strongly that depending on the choices of our governments now, we are either on the verge of a discovery so great it could change human life for the better like never before, or, if the wrong choices over legislation and the extent to which genetic engineering can go are made, then we could, over an amazingly short period of time, initiate our own self destruction.
